S Arunkumar v. The State Rep.By

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.39 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the husband of A1, along with other accused on a false promise to secure various jobs in TASMAC, had received totally a sum of Rs.1,14,50,000/- from various persons and thereafter, they have neither secured any job nor returned the money and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, they have refused to return the money and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this

case. He would further submit that due to financial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, a false complaint has been registered as a case of job racketing. He would also submit that A1, A2 and A3 were arrested and released on bail by this Court by an order dated 28.03.2023. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and along with other accused, in order to secure job at TASMAC, have received a sum of Rs.1,14,50,000/- from various persons including the defacto complainant and thereafter, when the defacto complainant approached the petitioner for job, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and refused to return the money. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned Government Advocate has produced a copy of the order passed by this Court and on perusal of the same, it is seen that the very same accused has moved this Court for anticipatory bail in connection with the very same job racketing case. This Court by an order dated 01.03.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.4222 of 2023 has granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he has to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakh to the credit of Crime No.80 of 2023. However, he has not complied with the said condition and moreover, he has also suppressed the fact that the earlier order passed by this Court and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition by disclosing all the information and the same will be decided on merits. 08.08.2023 ata

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

ata 08.08.2023